Sure, if it bleeds it leads. But I've been a news consumer since the 1980s and a reader of the NYT almost as long as it's had a web site. It is my strong impression that its headlines have gotten noticeably worse. The main one that annoys me, and I don't actually see an example of it on the main page right now, is the teaser headline that forces you to click through to know what the article is even about[^1].
Edit: here's an example. Headline on the front page is "A Chaotic, Confusing Campaign: Here’s Who Should Be the Next Governor of California". Makes it sound like you're clicking through to an endorsement, right? Nope, the article is actually a voter guide. It's a completely misleading headline.
[^1]: You can often inspect the URL to see the original descriptive headline before the clickbaiters got to it which makes it even more annoying.
Blame the economics of the Internet. Companies use clickbait because it works, there have been many examples of this, and if a company wants to stay revenue generating in this day and age it must use clickbait.
Quite funny to think that we might have AI models meticulously nudging newspaper editors in order to carefully control the public's Overton Window about AI, playing some 5d chess.
I don't discount that it's possible that NYT headline policy could have changed in the last decade, but sensationalism when it comes to newspaper headlines is the historical norm. "Clickbait" is an ancient phenomenon:
"In A History of News, Mitchell Stephens notes sensationalism can be found in the Ancient Roman gazette Acta Diurna, where official notices and announcements were presented daily on public message boards, the perceived content of which spread with enthusiasm in illiterate societies."
When it comes to dealing with the abuse of power by those who hold power, the question is not "who's allowing them to do this?", it's "who's going to stop them?".
The fact that Tesla's stock price is so evidently detached from the performance of the company itself makes me wonder whether or not a public SpaceX will cause those investors who are just trying to ride the Musk train to exit Tesla stock and dump everything they can into SpaceX instead.
Technically true, but unsafe Rust is much harder to deal with because it makes assumptions (sometimes very non-obvious) regarding aliasing that Zig does not. You might think you can avoid problems by using T* rather than T&, but every accessible local is effectively a T& so it's still very easy to do something you're not supposed to.
No, I'm not sure where you heard this but this is certainly not the case. If I have an i32 on the stack in Rust, there are no aliasing invariants that need to be upheld. You do, in fact, avoid problems in unsafe Rust by just using raw pointers instead of references. The idea that "unsafe Rust is harder to deal with than {Zig, C, C++}" is a long-outdated notion from old versions of Rust, before there was a dedicated way to produce a raw pointer without first producing an intermediate reference.
These reports are smoking crack. Rust scales gloriously well into large codebases, and it especially shines when it comes to making major refactorings. Please don't bother speaking about things that you don't understand.
You are entirely right here, you're also incredibly rude. Please don't bother replying when the only thing you're actually doing is being condescending and spreading negativity
Rudeness is perfectly acceptable when it comes to preventing the spread of blithe and thoughtless disinformation. I have no obligation to be polite to people who speak authoritatively on topics they know nothing about. I recommend you spend less energy on trying to defend clueless people by policing the tone of the people educating them, unless you think that polite ignorance is more societally valuable than brusque truth.
Could you please not sermonize or act like a demanding customer? We don't, and can't ever, see everything that's posted here, and even if we could it's not appropriate for moderators to adjudicate on the correctness of any claim. It’s by cultivating discussions between different people with different perspectives that we illuminate topics here. Obviously you have deep expertise on those topic. Great! Please educate people rather than berating them.
This is only a place anyone wants to participate on because we have guidelines and others make the effort to observe them. You've been here long enough to know that. Please don't trash what you seem to have found value in for so long. We don't need you to be "effusively pleasant" or erudite, just respectful.
For the price of all this righteousness you could have provided a reference. Some reference. So that curious bystanders like me can learn from the exchange.
There is no such thing as a self-sufficient version of any industry in space, and you should expect this to remain the case for approximately the next 10,000 years. Until then, everything that happens in space will have a supply chain rooted on Earth.
Except unlike Roko's basilisk, this is not absurd pseudo-game-theory extrapolation based on the hypothetical existence of a supreme superintelligence that is simultaneously infinitely vengeful, infinitely omniscient, and infintely omnimpotent; instead it's just the same authoritarian corporate-backed police-state privacy encroachment that has been tightening around our throats for years.
> While $500k 90m movie done in two weeks is an accomplishment
Is it, though? If all you want is a movie, you can make it for both less money and less time. And if you actually have some modicum of talent, you can make it higher-quality to boot; see Joel Haver, who challenged himself to author, film, edit, and release 12 feature-length films during the course of 2024 on effectively no budget whatsoever (playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ZRRTsa5SY&list=PLKtIcOP0Wv... ).
True - your comment reminded me of Cube; that was done in 3 weeks, with budget of $350,000 CAD (according to wikipedia). Another favorite of mine - Primer = 5 weeks with budget of $7k.
The cube was not “done” in 3 weeks. Maybe they shot it in 3 weeks, but there were years of pre-production, and at least months of post-production. (According to wikipedia.)
Saying that it was done in 3 weeks is like saying that windows 11 was done in 45 minutes, because that is how long the compilation lasted.
> with budget of $350,000 CAD
“50% of the budget as C$350,000 to C$375,000 in cash and the other 50% as donated services, for a total of C$700,000. Natali considered the cash figure to be deceptive, because they deferred payment on goods and services, and got the special effects at no cost.”
I encourage you to relieve yourself of your naivete. Your default stance needs to be that every company on the planet would feed you feet-first and screaming into a woodchipper if they thought they could make a dollar from it.
Your comment is so depressing because of how graphic it is, and what makes it so upsetting is that I can't disagree. You and I have lost faith in the world. Oh, to go back to when I was young and I thought theft and abuse were rare...
This has been the case for essentially all newspapers since time immemorial. Reporters write the articles, editors write the headlines.
reply